geocode_city

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool returns candidate matches due to ambiguity, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs, which would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds essential context about ambiguity and usage. Every sentence is valuable and efficiently communicates what the tool does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only two parameters and an output schema is present, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains why multiple results may be returned and how this tool fits into a workflow with its sibling, providing enough context for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains the 'name' parameter with examples and describes 'limit' as the maximum number of candidate matches, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds latitude and longitude of a city by name. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_forecast', which accepts coordinates, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states to use this before get_forecast, and explains that city names are ambiguous, so candidate matches are returned. Provides clear context for when to use and what to expect.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.